HL Deb 21 March 1983 vol 440 cc952-81

4.13 p.m.

Report stage resumed on Clause 6.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31: Page 6. line 20, leave out ("have regard in particular to") and insert ("include among the matters to which they shall have particular regard").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment still deals with Clause 6, and it brings us back to the words: have regard in particular to", although I am hoping that when I have explained the amendment this will be one occasion when noble Lords and the Minister will be able to agree with it. The provisions of subsection (7) are not immediately apparent. The subsection requires reference to the relevant sections of the 1968 or 1969 Acts or references to the Notes on Clauses, which explain the actual purpose. I do not think that many noble Lords reading subsection (7) would know to what it refers unless they did one of those two things.

The subsection requires that, before giving or withholding an approval for an increase in fares, a passenger transport authority shall have regard to the extent to which their decision will affect the amount of revenue grants needed by the executive to break even. The subsection provides that the authority: shall have regard in particular to that matter.

This amendment does not seek to remove that particular aspect. But I am certain noble Lords will readily agree that there will be other matters of importance to which the authorities should have regard before giving or withholding approval to a proposed rise in fares. With the amendment, the relevant part of the subsection will read: the Authority shall include among the matters to which they shall have particular regard the extent to which their decision will affect the amount of revenue grants". In other words, we are not in any way changing the intention of the Bill that there shall be particular regard to the effect which any decision on fare increases may have on revenue grants. The amendment ensures that as well as having particular regard to this matter there may be other issues to which they ought to have particular regard.

One that comes to mind immediately is that there could be protests from employers that increases in fares may have terrible effects upon their own workpeople in certain areas. Therefore, there could be other matters to which they should have particular regard. But on this occasion I think noble Lords will agree that, to use that great word, we are being very "reasonable", and that we are not changing the intention of the Bill but widening it so as to improve its content. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining the purport of his amendment. Although he thinks that this is a very reasonable amendment, in fact I would have chosen a rather different description. Although at first sight it seems harmless enough, in fact it seems to me that it quite alters the meaning of the subsection, and in quite a significant way.

As the noble Lord was kind enough to remind us, in Clause 6(7) we are saying that, before giving or withholding an approval for a rise in fares, the authority must have particular regard to two specific issues—the effect of their decision on the amount of revenue grants which will be needed by the executive in order to meet its financial duty to break even and, secondly, the need to achieve a proper balance between the interests of ratepayers and transport users. In our view these are the important issues to which they really must have particular regard. These are the issues which, in essence, give rise to the Bill itself.

However, in fact, the amendment actually changes this emphasis. It says that the authority shall include these two issues: among matters to which they shall have particular regard". So the amendment contemplates other issues to which the authority must have particular regard but does not specify what those issues are. I rather question how an authority can give regard to particular issues, as set down in Clause 6(7), which are unspecified. I am sorry if this sounds a rather convoluted English lesson, but, so far as I can see, the amendment rather muddies the waters. It leaves the authorities unclear on the issues to which they must have regard. Of course, we would much prefer that the issues to which the authorities should have regard are left quite clear.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, once again I rise with pleading in my voice, sorrow in my heart and a prophetic expectation of the reply that I shall receive, and it all makes me very miserable. I tried to listen to the noble Lord's reply with the courtesy with which I know the Minister listened to my noble friend Lord Underhill. Are the Government so complete in wisdom that they can imagine that there is nothing to which an authority would want to have particular regard other than the matters that they have mentioned? Are they really saying, with their hand on their hearts, that an authority will be put into some doubt as to what it can do if it is told that it must have particular regard to these two items, but it could indeed have particular regard to another item?

I regard this almost as one of the benedictions which Lewis Carroll left to our literature. I am trying to envisage an authority saying, using the example of my noble friend that a rise in fares may hit employment, "No. We can have regard to that, but we must not have particular regard to that, because all that we are allowed to have particular regard to is set out in the sub-section". Really this is reducing the language to an absurdity.

All my noble friend is saying, and all I am saying on behalf of my other noble friends, is that we are trying to see to it that there is a tidy provision which carries out the Government's policy that before a fare rise there must be particular regard given to these two matters, but it is not shutting the door to an authority being able to take other considerations into its mind before making a decision, and indeed to have particular regard to things that may be local, that may be unseen.

There is nothing in the world that can stop them from having particular regard. If they can have regard to something, they can have particular regard to it. We are therefore making it transparently clear that the door is not shut to other items of consideration when a fare increase is indeed being looked at. If the Minister indicates after this that again he can still see no reason for reconsideration, the door is closed to this amendment, I am really beginning to wonder—and I think that those on Benches behind me and by the side of me feel the same—whether or not the task of an Opposition trying constructively to improve a Bill is not, in your Lordships' House, a waste of time at the moment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I think all of your Lordships would be sad at the thought, at the concept, of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, despite appearances to the contrary, being sad. I console myself, and your Lordships can console yourselves, with the atmosphere of robust cheerfulness in which he gave that indication.

The noble Lord somewhat understated what seems to me to be the effect of this amendment. Undoubtedly its acceptance would blur the clarity of the subsection as it stands. There two matters are specified to which particular regard must be given. If it is suggested that there are other matters susceptible of equality of regard, equally to "have particular regard", then a good deal of the effect of the shortness, if you like, of the subsection is removed and the guidance that it gives to those who have to administer this would be the less clear. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not accept this amendment.

Having referred to the sadness of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I am now going to make the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sad. He consoled himself on the preceding amendment by indicating that he thought—and I am sure he said this in entire sincerity—that he would have my support on Third Reading if he moved his same amendment with the one word "reasonably" added. Quite apart from the folly of the noble Lord in seeking to speculate on how I should view an amendment which I have not yet heard argued, I would remind him, and this may make him very sad indeed, that it would be wholly contrary to the practice of this House to have an amendment in substantially the same form as was rejected on Report discussed on Third Reading.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, may I answer particularly one point? The Bill, as drafted, does not prevent an authority having particular regard to other matters. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so succinctly put it, if we add the words of the amendment, it blurs the clarity of the subsection. We could not agree to compel the authority to have particular regard to matters which are not specified. That really is the point.

With the leave of your Lordships' House, may I correct something I said earlier this afternoon? When we were discussing Amendment No. 28, I rather misled your Lordships in my response to that. I said that the requirement to consult was added with the agreement of both sides at Committee stage in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quite rightly pointed out that the voting was 13 in favour of the amendment and 11 against. I accept this. However, in his speech, the honourable Member for Westhoughton said in reference to the amendment to add consultation: This amendment is a palliative. It ameliorates the excesses of the Bill, and we shall not vote against the amendment". Again I have to apologise if I misled your Lordships on that point.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for confirming what I said on Amendment No. 28. It is good to have that matter clarified. Once again I emphasise, as did my noble friend Lord Mishcon in his remarks, that we are not attempting to take out of this subsection the two particular items mentioned there. The only basic argument that the Minister has put forward is that any other matters are not specified. Between now and the Third Reading we shall give some thought to that. Maybe we can specify items at the same time as making these two points ones to which particular regard shall be given. If we can do that, that will improve the subsection.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am not easily saddened. If I were, I should have given up politics many years ago. We know only too well that we cannot bring forward an amendment in the same terms as one defeated on a Division, but the addition of the vital word to which the noble Lord referred will make it a different matter altogether. I have not said that we shall bring it forward, but we shall give serious consideration to that. As the Government are being very sticky on this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Review of managerial organisation]:

4.27 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 32: Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to ("cause") in line 28 and insert ("if the Secretary of State so requires, not more than once in any period of three years").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must not keep using the word "reasonable" because I am expecting far too much of the Government to be reasonable. Clause 7(1) will compel a passenger transport authority to undertake a management review, whenever the Secretary of State so requires". When originally drafted the Bill provided that the authority should undertake a review whenever the Secretary of State so required, but also forthwith after the passing of the Act. The Government, on second thoughts, thought that that was going much too far.

Although Clause 7 was not properly discussed in the other place, the Government brought forward an amendment to remove reference to an immediate review after the Act became law. Once again, that was not discussed. As reference to cols. 925 and 926 of the Official Report for Standing Committee A will show, the amendment was proposed by the Minister, Mr. Eyre, and then put to the vote and carried by 13 votes to 11. That particular amendment, while it improved the Bill, did not necessarily have our approval because of other factors in it.

This amendment takes this commonsense step a little further. Surely it is unreasonable for a Secretary of State to have power to require a review to be undertaken at any time and as often as he may think fit, because that is what "whenever" means. I dare say that our legal gentlemen present will be able to confirm that that is what it must mean. It is clear from the wording of the provision that the review is designed to determine whether, in the interests of managing the actions of the executive in the most efficient manner, any particular activities of the executive should be managed as separate units with separate accounts. Thus, there is a special purpose for having a review.

Surely it is unreasonable that the Bill should be left as drafted, enabling the Secretary of State to conduct a review whenever he desires. The amendment proposes that a review should be conducted, if the Secretary of State so requires, not more than once in any period of three years. Bearing in mind the reasons for the review, that would appear a sensible, practicable and reasonable proposal, remembering that the annual review which the executive prepares is for a running period of three years, so no Secretary of State should want a review to cover the points I mentioned more than once every three years.

The amendment would, therefore, tie the Secretary of State down to having a review not more than once in a period of three years. It may be argued—the same argument has been used on other amendments—that the Secretary of State, being a reasonable man, would never think of doing otherwise. But Secretaries of State, like people's attitudes, change, and the Bill should make it clear that once in three years should be sufficient. We are not saying it must be once in three years, but not more than once in three years. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I made the somewhat flippant remark on Second Reading that the clause as drafted gave power to the Secretary of State to have a review every Thursday fortnight. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, a reasonable Secretary of State would not call for a review more frequently than he felt was absolutely necessary; but let us consider the position if the present wording of the Bill had been set down as an amendment. Undoubtedly the Minister would say that it was foolish because it left the Bill wide open, and was bad drafting. I suggest that the Bill as drafted leaves a lot to be desired. Even if the Government do not accept that three years is the correct period, I hope they will agree that the Bill needs amending; and if they would prefer a period other than three years, perhaps they will bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, having listened to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, I can say categorically that the Secretary of State has no intention of requiring transport authorities to cause frequent reviews to be made of the management and organisation of their executives. Once a review has been made—whether it has been initiated by the executive, the authority or under Clause 7 of this measure—the authority and the executive will need to consider the report and, perhaps, implement changes. It is essential that the structure should then be allowed to settle down and the executive get on with the job of running the local transport.

The Monopolies and Mergers Commission commented about the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive that after completing the present organisational changes the executive should, for a time, limit further changes to those necessary to secure specific efficiency improvements. We do not want unnecessary and frequent upheavals. That would be a recipe for low morale and inefficiency. Once we have an efficient and effective structure, we need stability.

While the Government have every sympathy with the views expressed, we must ask whether it is necessary to amend the Bill. I do not think it is. I have made the Government's position clear—that there is no intention of making frequent demands for reviews—and I reiterate the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin (as reported in column 893 of Hansard of 17th March) that the Secretary of State would call for a review under Clause 7 only at the time of giving the guidance.

It would be undesirable to modify the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State asking for more frequent reviews. However, I assure the House that it is not his intention to ask for such reviews more frequently than once in every three years. The existing power in Section 15 of the 1968 Act does not prevent an authority from requiring frequent reviews; the wording there is that the authority "may from time to time" cause a review to be made. The authorities act reasonably and properly, and there is no reason to suppose that the Secretary of State would do other than likewise.

In more practical terms, even were a Clause 7 review called for, a considerable amount of time must elapse for the preparation, further consideration, the review itself and ultimately the implementation of that which the review might contain. Therefore, probably most of the time referred to in the amendment would elapse in any event. With the assurance I have given—namely, that it is not the Government's intention to ask for reviews more frequently—I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I hope the Minister will remember that this is not a discussion with the department which he represents with such ability after so little experience (from that point of view he deserves the congratulations of the whole House) or a question of your Lordships interviewing the department before a Select Committee knowing the present intention of the Secretary of State. We are legislating. The Minister says, "The Secretary of State has not the slightest intention of doing anything like this twice in three years"; and, "After all, it will take a terrific amount of time, anyway, in the preparation of it, and it would not be practical to do it more than once in three years"; and, "The Secretary of State would not want to gum up the machinery by asking for more than one review in three years". The noble Lord then hopes the House will accept that assurance as being the present intention of the present Government. I repeat that this is not an interview between the department and the legislature. This is a debate on the wording of a Bill which is supposed to last quite a long time, despite the frequency of Transport Bills under this Administration.

From that point of view, I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff: if the Government feel it would be wrong to say three years—legislating for future Secretaries of State and future Governments—but have in mind another period, by all means let the Minister frankly say so. But we cannot leave the wording as it is, enabling the Secretary of State to call for more frequent reviews, on the lame excuse that the present Secretary of State has told the noble Lord, I am sure personally, that he does not intend to have a review more than once in every three years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, nodding in assent: that useful interview with his right honourable friend, I note, has taken place. But it does not bind anybody. Indeed, if the Secretary of State's successor happened to be more active in calling for reviews and thought it was a pleasant way for a Secretary of State to conduct the activities of his ministerial office, then I am sure the Minister realises that a quotation from Hansard saying it was not the intention of his predecessor to do so would not have the slightest effect. I repeat, therefore, that we are legislating, not interviewing.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add to what my noble friend Lord Mishcon has said. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that this provision is for reviews for particular purposes, not just general reviews to check the organisation to see how things are going. It is for special purposes which I read out. I can only say that it is all very well having sympathy. Noble Lords were awaiting the word "but" and once again we were not disappointed. "Every sympathy, but …" is what we are told on amendment after amendment. Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said confirms that there is no reason why these words should not be put into the Bill. There is no intention of the Minister to conduct unnecessary reviews; we would not require unnecessary upheaval, certainly the requirement would have to be met not more than once in every three years. That is what the amendment says.

We will not press this to a Division. Perhaps the noble Lord will look carefully at Hansard to see whether I or he made a mistake. I thought that he said that the Secretary of State would only ask for a review at the time he gives guidance. He is going to give guidance every year. If that is what the Minister is going to do, we shall certainly need to have this provision put in. We will read what he has said and I hope that the Minister will read carefully about this. The drafting was found to be inadequate and an amendment was introduced by the Government in the Committee stage in the other place. It may well be the desire of the Government to make this improvement at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.42 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 33: Page 7, line 14, at end insert (", but shall not be hound to accept the lowest, or any, tender so invited.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the provision that an executive shall invite tenders to carry on certain activities of the executive. The amendment would provide that the executive shall not be bound to accept the lowest or any other tender. Noble Lords will recall that a similar amendment was put forward at Committee stage and that I and other noble Lords then stressed that there are various factors which an executive might wish to take into consideration. The noble Lord the Minister (the same Minister) on that occasion said that the executive—and I quote: will only have to accept tenders where it appears to the executive that the activity can be more satisfactorily and more cheaply carried out by another body". That is in col. 1253.

Various noble Lords put forward reasonable arguments as to why an executive might not wish to accept the lowest tender. The Minister has made quite clear that that would not necessarily be made compulsory on an executive. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway (who is in his place today), said that there is nothing in this amendment which would destroy any intention of the Bill. The Minister during our Committee stage (in Cols. 1254 and 1255) said: In view of what has been said, I am quite happy to go away and read and consider again what noble Lords have said with regard to this matter". The Government have not brought forward an amendment. We have brought forward an amendment and hope that the Minister, with his colleagues, has been able to reflect on this and will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is quite correct. At Committee stage, I undertook to read and consider what noble Lords had said at that time. We were then discussing an almost identical amendment (No. 59 at that time) which sought to insert a provision in the Bill that an executive should not be bound to accept the lowest or any tender.

This amendment has to be seen in the context of the clause as a whole. It is for the executive to determine which of its activities are appropriate for a tendering exercise and to decide the period for which, and the basis on which, tenders should be invited. An authority may direct its executive to invite tenders for such periods, on such bases and for local activities as they may direct. Subsection (3) requires that if it appears to the executive that the acceptance of a tender would result in the relevant activities being carried on in a satisfactory manner and at less cost to them than if they were to continue to carry on those activities themselves, they are to accept the tender. The Government consider it to be right that the executive should be under a duty, where they are satisfied in the terms of subsection (3), to accept the tender. The amendment would be in direct conflict with that duty as it would enable the executive to refuse a tender even if they were satisfied that by letting a contract the activities would be carried out in a satisfactory manner and at less cost to themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the question as to whether this would require an executive to put out to tender part of its activities which could be run more cheaply by a private concern but in cricumstances which would be disadvantageous to other parts of their operation. It will be, first, for the executive to consider whether any activity is appropriate for inviting tenders. If the separation of a particular activity would have an obviously disadvantageous effect, it would surely not be appropriate to invite such tenders. If tenders are invited, it is the executive which is the judge of whether the activities will be carried out in a satisfactory manner. The economic test is whether the result of letting the tender will be less cost to the executive than if they continued running the activity themselves. When we talk about "at less cost", one has to take into account—and I emphasise this point particularly to answer the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—and to look at the spread or overheads over the whole operation. If an activity were removed but the overhead stayed, then the overhead in relation to the activity remaining would be that much higher. There would, therefore, be a disadvantage so that it would be for the executive to take that kind of calculation into account. If the executive apply this test, then they have the opportunity of not just making a comparison of direct costs but relating the running of the activity against the price in the tender.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, suggested that there might be reasons for not accepting the lowest tender and there might be reasons why it was considered unsatisfactory which the executive did not necessarily want to discuss in public. I was at some pains at that time to explain that it is the executive which has to be the judge of whether or not the tenderer will run the activities in a satisfactory manner. If they are not satisfied of this, then they will certainly be under no duty to accept the tender.

Following on that point, it was the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who again raised the question of the persistent tenderer who might press an executive to accept a particular tender. The Government do not consider that the executive should refuse to accept a tender otherwise than on the test set out in subsection (3). If the tender is unsatisfactory, the executive should be able to say so. In any case, this question of the persistent tenderer is no different under the Bill from what it would be under a conventional tendering system.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway suggested that the inclusion of Amendment No. 59 at Committee stage did no violence to the spirit of any principle in the Bill. But, as I have pointed out, it would detract from the duty under subsection (3) to accept a tender where the executive is satisfied that the activity will be satisfactorily carried on and that the overall cost to the executive will be less.

So I ask that your Lordships' House will accept the Bill as it stands, so that where an executive or authority has decided to seek tenders, and where a fully satisfactory tender can be carried out with those two conditions met—less cost and the tenderer being satisfactory—the executive should be bound to accept it. In the light of the explanation I have given as to why the Government do not believe it right to accept the amendment, which is so similar in terms to the previous amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, which I think is the appropriate phrase to use, I shall be grateful to him if he will reply to the points which are relevant and with which, with great respect to him, he has not yet dealt. May we approach this amendment with a practical sense and an objective view? There is an imposition upon the executive which is accepted, that they must choose the activities which they think may suitably go out for tender. That presupposes a bona fide executive considering within the spirit of this Bill what could possibly be more economically or indeed more satisfactorily carried out by somebody else. So you start off with a predetermined fairness and honesty of an executive.

Once you take that for granted, do your Lordships not think that you have to protect the executive? A tender may be submitted which happens to be at a low cost—this may be true of two tenderers, not just one—but the executive's inquiries show that the people concerned have not given satisfaction in a certain number of cases or have been dilatory in the work that they have carried out. That information may have reached the executive as a result of private inquiries carried out by the executive's officers. The executive, knowing of these facts, having in good faith—because otherwise it would not have gone out to tender—decided that these are activities suitable for tender, wonders how it can deal with this situation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who will correct me if I am wrong, was seized of this point when he participated in the debate last time. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and he is quite right: lawyers do sometimes contribute usefully, even as usefully as the noble Lord, Lord Soames, does whenever he speaks. The noble Lord, Lord Soames, has the gift, too, of a voice which, whenever he whispers, is heard in all parts of the Chamber.

My Lords, the executive is faced with this position: I referred at the Committee stage to a persistent tenderer. They want tactfully to be able to point to a portion of a clause in the Bill which says that the executive is not necessarily bound to accept the lowest tender. There is not anything in the clause at the moment. So the tenderer, feeling very dissatisfied and being the type of person to whom Lord Soames's attention was being drawn, a rather astute and persistent lawyer—unlike members of your Lordships' House—thereupon advises: "I doubt whether the executive has this right. I think that we ought to take them on judicial review. I think that we ought to approach a Member of Parliament known to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has all the time in the world to raise matters of this kind; and the other place and this place have all the time in the world, according to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to consider such matters".

The matter is raised. There is a mandatory obligation, I submit, under this clause that the executive has either to show that the tenderer was not a satisfactory tenderer, or they cannot refuse it. All that my noble friends and I are trying to do—and I repeat it—is to give the bona fide executive that has already decided on its own volition to go out for tender, the opportunity to be able to point to words in this Bill which enable them to say: "We are not accepting your tender although it is the lowest, and we do not have to satisfy you, a court or Parliament that you are not a satisfactory tenderer".

These cases are bound to happen, and that is why we are here. It is to consider matters of that kind and to make sure that if there is what appears to be a bona fide gap in the provisions, without people trying to make subtle points to wreck the clause or whatever, it should be looked at fairly and objectively, and not voted on on a political basis. I shall not object if any noble friend of mine, having listened to this dissertation, calls out, "Not-Content", when this amendment is put to the House. I equally turn to the Cross-Benches and every other section of the House and I ask your Lordships to look perfectly fairly at the argument that I have put.

It cannot be an executive that does not want to get shot of this activity and does not like the idea of any tenderer getting it. Under the provisions of this clause, the executive has carried out the duty of putting it out to tender because the executive has determined it is appropriate. Nobody else has done so. Before we pass on to another amendment, I ask that this matter is properly considered. From the words that he uttered as he sat down, the noble Lord the Minister seemed almost convinced last time, and we left the matter with contentment. He said that he was quite happy to go away, read and consider again what noble Lords had said with regard to the matter. I hope that your Lordships will do the same and that this is at least one amendment that will be accepted.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I add that certainly Lord Mishcon's recollection of the issues that we discussed on the last occasion is correct. He failed to say that there were a great many noble Lords on both sides of the House who pressed for the Government to have a further look at this matter, and indeed we have done just that. We do not see the requirement under the clause as an imposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described it. It is a requirement that the executive—and the executive alone—may decide whether or not any of their activities is suitable for going out to tender. It is for them so to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised particularly the point of the lowest tender which was perhaps unsatisfactory in other respects, howsoever the reasons for that tender being unsatisfactory are obtained. But the Bill in fact allows the executive to refuse a tender on the grounds that it is unsatisfactory, and—

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I do beg of the noble Lord, only because it is so important and I am thinking in terms of executives and the duty that this House has. I have admitted all that. I am asking the noble Lord to put himself in the position of having to communicate to a tenderer who knows that his tender was a low one, and possibly the lowest, why it is that his tender has not been accepted: because under the present wording of this Bill (and I challenge the noble Lord to say that I am wrong and to give me reasons for it) he has to say, if it happens to be the lowest tender, that it is that the tenderer is unsatisfactory. The executive, without these words, is left naked before the tenderer—a most unseemly position, as I am sure your Lordships will agree.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. If the tender is unsatisfactory in any way the executive are not bound to accept it. There must be a reason for an executive not wishing to accept—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will allow me to continue—and if there is such a reason why the executive do not think the tender is satisfactory they ought to be able to say so. If they cannot, there must be some doubt as to whether or not it is satisfactory; and they are under a duty, if the tender is satisfactory in all respects and can be undertaken at less cost to themselves, to accept. Did the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, want to intervene?

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I merely wanted to refer the noble Lord to the wording of the Bill. It does not talk about being "satisfactory in all respects", but about the relevant activities being carried on in a satisfactory manner". That is the only point where the word "satisfactory" comes into this clause.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I take it the House will accept that I was interrupted rather than that I am coming to the Box for a third time. Yes, I did say "in all respects", but perhaps I should remove those three words and say "satisfactory". At the end of the day it is for the executive to determine whether the tender is satisfactory, and if it is, coupled with the point as regards the cost, then they should accept it.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, one thing has been overlooked by the Minister in his replies, and that is subsection (5). The report that has to be presented under the terms of the 1968 and 1969 Acts, as detailed in subsection (5), has to contain a statement showing the steps which have been taken by the executive to comply with subsections (1) and (2) of this clause. The Minister is bound to ask: What have you done? They include in the report what they have done, and whether they have not accepted any tender. The next question is: Why have you not accepted a tender? Surely, if these words are put in they safeguard the transport executive.

The Minister said that the insertion of these words would detract from the provisions of the Bill, but the provisions would still be there—that they should accept, in the words that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, just read out. The position of the executive would be safeguarded if these words were inserted. Perhaps I might also suggest to the Government that they should take a careful look at subsection (5) to see whether that is worded correctly, because the report is a joint report of the authority and the executive. Therefore, that might want tidying up as well; but that is not the purpose of our amendment.

Once again, I think it is apparent to noble Lords that the Government are being unduly opposition-minded in refusing to accept these amendments. We will have a careful look at this matter again, and I hope that the Minister himself will look very carefully at what has been said. I believe a reasoned argument has been put forward from this side of the House, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We are not trying to take away the provisions under Clause 8; what we are trying to do is to make them fair and reasonable. In the circumstances, we will have a careful look at this and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.5 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 34:

After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:

("Travel concessions for unemployed persons, etc.

. Section 138 of the Act of 1968 (travel concessions for the elderly, blind and disabled) shall be amended by inserting after subsection (5)(c) the words—

"(d) unemployed persons and persons training for employment under arrangements approved by the Manpower Services Commission.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the same amendment as is now before your Lordships was considered during the Committee stage. It was then argued by some that the Transport Bill was not the right place for this kind of issue to be dealt with. I said that I would consider very carefully what had been said during that very interesting debate, and drew attention to the fact that my noble friend Lord Molloy had a Bill covering the same issue. I indicated that we might wish to come back on Report after considering everything that had been said.

As your Lordships may recall, on Friday, 11th March, we discussed this Bill and once again we had a very interesting debate. An amendment was put down and, on a Division, the Second Reading of the Bill was refused; but I must draw the attention of those of your Lordships who may not have been present or have read the Official Report, that it was not necessarily because of any disagreement on the principle of my noble friend's Bill. The Division was taken on an amendment, That the Bill be read this day six months". The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made it absolutely clear that his amendment was introduced on procedural grounds and so the amendment is back today, in accordance with the statement I made when withdrawing the earlier amendment at Committee stage.

Your Lordships will not wish me to repeat all the arguments that were put forward during the very interesting debate at Committee stage or that were put forward in connection with my noble friend's Private Bill, but there are some misunderstandings which must be cleared up. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, referred to travel assistance which is available in connection with the steps a person may take to secure work under schemes sponsored either by the DHSS or by the Manpower Services Commission. This was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the debate on my noble friend's Bill. I must remind the House that it was stated that under the DHSS scheme the condition is that the person has to be unemployed and in receipt of supplementary benefit. Therefore many unemployed persons will be excluded from the provisions of the DHSS scheme for assistance to travel when seeking work. So even on the grounds of help in applying for jobs, this amendment is needed to cover those persons who are not in receipt of supplementary benefit.

The Minister also explained the assistance available in connection with the MSC scheme when going to interviews to obtain employment. Again it was made perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in what they said respectively at Committee stage and during the discussion of my noble friend's Bill. I quote from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on 11th March at col. 451: … the prospective employer must confirm a good chance of success in the job application;". So even that help under the Manpower Services Commission has stringent conditions, and we have the situation that both schemes for assistance which were mentioned at earlier stages can still exclude quite a number of the unemployed.

During the debate in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said he was not sure about assistance for training, but that he would have a look at that. The noble Lord kindly wrote to me and drew attention to certain provisions, to which I should like to make reference. Persons employed in youth opportunities schemes are reimbursed with travelling expenses over £4 per week. Persons taking other training opportunities schemes are at present reimbursed for journeys over two-and-a-half miles as the crow flies—although buses do not travel as the crow flies, and often go around lanes—at flat rates of £2.50 in London and £1.75 elsewhere. But the Minister kindly pointed out that, as from 1st April this year, they will be on the same basis as the YOP schemes; that is, they will be reimbursed for travelling costs over £4 per week. This information, for which I am obliged to the Minister, means that a person on a training scheme has to meet the first £4 of travelling costs each week and, once again, it appears that this amendment is necessary.

We need to help the unemployed person who does not receive supplementary benefit and who is excluded from the DHSS scheme, because he has to bear the first £4. We need to help all persons undergoing training with the cost of fares up to £4 a week. These can be young people or people out of work. I would remind your Lordships that on 16th March this year official figures stated that 500,000 persons who are out of work have been unemployed for two years.

The amendment is not concerned only with assistance to find jobs, or with helping people who are undergoing training, although it is clear from the information given by the Minister that those points alone would justify this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that it would be very difficult to draw a distinction between the unemployed and those who are eligible, and that, if we brought in this category, other persons would have to be brought in as well. That is a time-honoured excuse for any Government not to do anything about something that is necessary.

At the Committee stage of this Bill and on my noble friend's Bill, I stressed that, as well as being concerned with those who are unemployed and are not on supplementary benefit, and who are now having to meet the first £4 per week of any travelling expenses for training, we are concerned with the lives of unemployed persons. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that, according to official figures on 16th March, which was only a week ago, half a million people have been out of work for two years and I ask you to picture what their lives can be.

Can they afford to visit relatives, if they live in estates on the outskirts of London and their relatives live in the city? I can tell your Lordships what the Central Line costs. It is far more than an unemployed man can afford. Are these people to be regarded as persons who must not travel anywhere for any social reasons, just because they cannot afford it?

I think that some noble Lords were a little sceptical when I referred to my football team, who have a specially reduced price for the unemployed at their matches. But if they live, as I do, five miles away, it could cost them 90p, and an unemployed person could not afford to go. He could not have that recreation. I hope that no one will say that the only recreation he should have is to ride his bike.

So this amendment is concerned not only with assistance for those travelling to find work who are not on supplementary benefit or who have to bear the first £4 of travelling costs. It is concerned with enabling the unemployed to live a normal type of life, the same as noble Lords in this House do.

I also want to make it clear, because it was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that not all local authorities take advantage of the provisions of Section 138 of the 1968 Act. We have made it absolutely clear that this amendment will not make it mandatory upon local authorities to grant this concession to the unemployed. Like the concessionary schemes for the aged, for the disabled, and for the blind, the power is permissive for the local authority concerned. Secondly, in the light of remarks that were made on my noble friend's Bill, the amendment would cover travel only within the area of the local authority which makes the decision to give the concession, or on routes which are adjoining. What is more, the local authority will determine any conditions applying to the concession.

There is every reason why noble Lords should support this amendment. It was stated at the Committee stage that this Bill is not the vehicle for it. It was stated on my noble friend's Bill that that was not the proper procedure. The only way in which we can come back to this matter is on this Transport Bill. This gives us an opportunity to do the right thing for the unemployed. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that, as I said, half a million people have been out of work for two years and, for them alone, we ought to agree this concession, so that they can lead the sort of life which everybody ought to lead. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, in opposing this amendment it would be wholly inappropriate to seek to repeat the reasons for opposition which I advanced at the Committee stage. But, surely, it cannot be desirable to leave travel concessions for the unemployed to the discretion of the local administration, at the ratepayers' expense, when it is the responsibility of central administration: quite apart from the problems of disparity of treatment, the discretion of the local authorities, and the limited local incidence.

It is wholly appropriate to afford requisite travel concessions to the registered unemployed in search of work. This is, essentially, a matter for central administration under the DHSS or the Department of Employment, albeit with safeguards against abuse such as were operated so successfully in the Manchester scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, drew our attention.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that these DHSS schemes as they exist today, and the MSC as it exists today, have certain inadequacies. If so, then so be it. But, surely, it is wrong to grant travel concessions to the unemployed as a matter of status, unrelated to the purpose of seeking employment. This amendment, in seeking to grant travel concessions to the unemployed as a matter of status—a form of general aid to the unemployed—goes right outside the scope of this Bill as envisaged by the short Title. I will not weary your Lordships by citing it. A glance at it should satisfy any of your Lordships who happen to be interested.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that this amendment was to enable the unemployed to lead an ordinary sort of life. Humanitarian considerations always attract some of your Lordships and, indeed, myself. But this Bill, according to its intendment, is not a Bill to enable the unemployed to lead an ordinary sort of life. If it were the declared intention of Her Majesty's Government not to implement a centrally administered scheme to assist the registered unemployed, then, obviously, consideration would have to be given to some other means. However, it is understood not only that such is not the case but that at the moment the matter is under review as to whether or not the centrally administered scheme, as it is at present, can be improved. Bearing in mind that the direct cost of the centrally administered scheme is very small, especially if one gives credit for the benefit of each job secured, such a scheme would provide a morale booster, which is so desirable and necessary, not only for the unemployed who are seeking employment but for us all.

The reason I oppose the amendment, and the spirit in which I oppose it, is on the same basis as I previously opposed travel concessions for the unemployed. I opposed it on its merits, not on a procedural point. It would be wrong to detain your Lordships with any further repetition.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I have no wish to detain your Lordships for too long. I wish to make only one point. Since we last discussed this issue, a few thousand more of our fellow Britons have been deprived of the right to earn a livelihood. When I listen to debates in this place, I sometimes think that it is the fault of the unemployed that they are on the dole; it is their fault that they are unable to find work and have gainful employment. We have to take these matters into consideration because there is a large, festering sore of bitterness in our country. According to my mail, that sore has turned gangrenous throughout this nation, because of the way that the issue was treated in this House on the last two occasions. Different reasons have been given for the opposition to it, but the united endeavour has been not to give a Briton of this country one ha'penny to go and look for work, despite the fact that he was exhorted so to do by one of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Secretary of State. People are asking, "Which bunch of you democratic politicians are we to believe?"

Another serious matter is that there are other people who are exploiting this issue. I feel sure that their views would be totally repugnant to every Member of your Lordships' House. Why are we giving them grist to the mill? When one tries to explain to a skilled artificer, doctor, nurse, labourer, electrician, or electrical engineer what is meant by something not being read until six months hence, they ask whether it means that they have got to stay on the dole for another six months or whether it is just a parliamentary gimmick so that the Government do not have to say that they do not agree that this concession should be given to the unemployed, despite the exhortation from one of Her Majesty's Ministers in another place.

Many arguments could be put forward. I am bound to say that there are times when I feel desperate. As I was walking up Whitehall the other day (I hope this will not be regarded as a rude or infamous thing to say, because I know many ex-members of the eighth army and of the British second army who are unemployed) I wondered what that great Field Marshal whose statue is there would have said had he known that many of his men, of my age, would be out of work and many of their sons, too, would be. I wondered whether he would have asked if this is the proper way for this nation to reward these men.

In the pubs they take two hours to drink a pint because they cannot call another one. This is happening in the clubs. It is a point of discussion in the Royal British Legion, of which I am proud to be Vice-President. Does all this mean just nothing to the House of Lords, either because it is a bad principle or because it is constitutionally unwise? How do you tell a man that he gave his life for his country in a manner which was constitutionally unwise?

I ask your Lordships to consider also this argument. If we could catch all the "patriots" in this land of ours who are cheating our nation to the tune of £9 billion on the black economy by tax evasion, or if we could get back 1/20th of the amount by which rich people are cheating this nation, it would pay for these concessionary fares over and over again. If your Lordships say that this is an emotional appeal, I shall reply that nothing can be more agonisingly emotional than for a craftsman or a professional man suddenly to lose his professional post or his job. They will look for work, and they are looking for work. As I have tried to explain, they are endeavouring to seek professional or labouring work in order to keep their families and maintain their dignity; but when they see that it will cost them another £12 or £13 a week out of their £30-odd unemployment benefit to do so they ask themselves whether it is worth it. They say that even after my endeavours last month and my endeavours over the last two years they have had to spend a great amount of money upon simply trying to get a job in order to earn a living for their families and to contribute to their country.

If we still want them to try and maintain their spirit and their desire to work, can we not at this stage say that we believe that they have done pretty well, that they are made of the right sort of stuff, that we understand the economic agony they are going through because of being on the dole, that we understand that they dare not risk a few more pounds in order to try to get a job because we realise that if they fail again the economic burden will increase? I am asking your Lordships to say that this House will not do that to Great Britain's unemployed and that at this late hour we shall say to them all, "We will not merely stand by you; we will pass this amendment so that we can make our contribution towards helping you to help yourselves".

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, sits down, may I respectfully ask him whether he appreciates the difference between that which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said this amendment was designed to achieve—to enable the unemployed to lead an ordinary sort of life—and the question of risking a few more pounds to provide the unemployed with money to search for work, which is the principle to which I have said over and over again that I adhere? Does the noble Lord appreciate the difference?

Lord Molloy

I appreciate the difference, my Lords. I am saying that the kernel of the submission is the search for work. That is the whole point. I will not accept the argument that if there were some heavenly host examining the proposition of the founder of the Christian religion and of the good Samaritan, it would be rejected on the basis that the good Samaritan was the last sort of person to have been brought into this proposition. If this House accepts that, then let us stop having Prayers before we meet each day or we shall have reached the apotheosis of hypocrisy.

You cannot take Great Britain's unemployed and look at one single man. Many of these people have the audacity to get married. Many of them have had the audacity to supply our nation with future Britons, their children. What I am suggesting is that this is not some magnificent contribution. It is not even the full fare. It is just a concession, and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, there is some argument against it not being compulsory. I can understand that argument. We all know and understand that unemployment is massive in certain areas. Such a concession probably will not be needed at all in Southern England—but in our great industrial bases this small contribution could help. If people do find work, then that is one move with my Bill. It is not only good for the man and his family; it is good for the area and the industry in which he works, and good for the economy and morale of our nation.

5.33 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I am always fascinated to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, because he does have an understanding of the unemployed in the town from which he comes. But for him to say that one cannot look at a single unemployed man and for him then to press a Bill lumping all unemployed together, as if their needs were in all cases exactly the same, and that this concession should apply to everyone, is something that I cannot accept.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, I meant that when one says, "This man is unemployed", it should be remembered that often he is not in fact alone but has a wife and children. His wife and his children do not figure in the 3½ million unemployed but they breathe, they go hungry, and they need things just the same as the unemployed man himself.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his explanation, but it does not interfere with my point. I do not believe that one can take the unemployed as a mass and put them all together, and say, "These people in general and in toto require this concession". I do not believe that is the right way of dealing with this matter.

If the noble Lord's view is that this concession will help people to get work, I agree it is important that something should be done in this way, but not in this particular form. The point was made that this concession would apply only in one's own area, and this means that the only way it could help one to find a job would be within one's own area. If one is in an area of the kind to which the noble Lord referred, where the unemployment is hardcore, long-term unemployment, the concession will not enable one to travel to another area where there might be jobs, because the concession will not apply outside one's own area. In that sense it is self-defeating.

I should like to say too that unemployment, particularly in the South-East, is not always what it seems. Reading that great banner across the water, I decided to take on a further part-time person to help at my dental surgery. I phoned the Job Centre and the answer that came back to me was, "No one wants to take a job like that. We would not have any hope of finding an applicant to send to you". For six months that job was open and not one applicant came to the door. This shows what the situation can be like in this great city.

There is a heavy amount of unemployment, but there is a mismatch between jobs and people—and a disinclination on the part of many to bother taking on a job unless it is so well-paid that the person is going to be much better off than he is when unemployed. We have reached the ridiculous situation now across the water where they are going to pay people £2.50 an hour to attend some of the committees as members of the public. I am all for opening the committees to the public, but then to pay people a granny allowance or a baby allowance to encourage them to attend the committees does seem to be a nonsense.

The noble Lord is now proposing giving them free fares to come there as well. All of this is at the expense of the ratepayers of this city, who can barely afford to live here and who are all getting out as fast as they can. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, last week raised the point about voters knowing what it was they are voting for in transport fares—but he said nothing about people who are paying the heaviest rates and who have no vote.

It is important also to realise that this concession will be yet another spring in the poverty trap. It would be yet another benefit to lose if one secured a job; another disincentive to taking a job. That would be the position—lose your job and get a travel concession, quite apart from the impracticability of trying to operate the scheme. One would have to have people notifying monthly or weekly whether or not they were unemployed, because the number of people who secure jobs and the number who lose jobs is a pretty rapid turnover in this city.

Has the noble Lord thought also about the number of women who will automatically register as unemployed, because I presume they would have to be registered as unemployed. Women now do not bother to register as being unemployed, but I would certainly advise them all to do so if it is going to achieve free travel or a travel concession. Has the noble Lord considered what that will cost?

This is not a practical proposal. Noble Lords might be aware already that the Transport Committee chairman of the Greater London Council believes that there should be no concessions but instead a totally free travel system. Think about the unemployment that would be created if such a thing was introduced to London. One would be losing around 50 per cent. of London Transport staff, and this would be a great number of people.

Lord Molloy

But, my Lords—

Lord Skelmersdale

Order! This is Report stage, my Lords.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I am making a point about the transport executive, and this whole Bill is related to the moves which are made by the transport executive. Where is one to stop these concessions? The classification of the unemployed is extremely difficult to assess. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in his statement about older people—and he mentioned people from the 8th Army, so obviously he meant the older section of the community—and I know from my own patients, that this is the hardest and saddest situation for people who have been made redundant and yet who are not old enough to retire. I hope at a later stage that the Government might look sympathetically at doing something to help those people. As I see it, there is little or no possibility of those people ever getting jobs again—but they are quite different from the people at the other end, the young ones, who definitely can and should be able to get jobs, certainly in this part of England and, as matters improve, I hope everywhere else too.

We must have the safety net to help people, to enable them to get about. I should like to see an improvement in the conditions attached to the schemes which have been mentioned from the DHSS, so that people could look for work in areas wider than any area that would be covered by this type of concession.

Mention was made of the black economy, and I would again mention to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that we are all well aware of the existence of this. Are we going to add a further perk, so that if you are registered as unemployed and working full-time in the black economy, as some people most certainly are, you might just as well have free fares on top of it? That is what this concession would do. I must oppose this amendment as I see it here. I think it is not correct. I think the motivation may be good, but the principle is not correct. It would be impractical and it would not be desirable.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, today's debate on this amendment is the third we have had in a fortnight about travel concessions for unemployed people. It was quite clear, particularly from what was said in the debate on Lord Molloy's Bill recently, that there was then, and indeed from what has been said this afternoon there is now, a great deal of sympathy on all sides of the House for the problems faced by those without work. But what we must ask ourselves, I suggest, is whether the measures here proposed represent a sensible response to those problems, whether this amendment really is an effective means of bringing help to the unemployed, and, equally important, whether it can be justified on general grounds of social policy.

The Government have no doubt that the best means of bringing help to those out of work is to get the economy back into a sound state of health. There are no easy answers on that score. We believe that the latest Budget represents a further solid step on the road to the kind of expansion in the economy that we want to see. It is only such expansion that can produce the new jobs—new jobs that will bring real hope to those now looking for employment. The steps taken by the Chancellor in his latest Budget include direct assistance to business which will be worth £3¾ billion in a full year, and reductions in the real burdens of tax and national insurance contributions on industry; and this will bring these down to some £2 billion less than in 1978–79.

That these measures of assistance are now possible is as a consequence of sound financial management in earlier years. The Chancellor has shown that he is determined to remain true to the same principles of sound and prudent management in this latest Budget. I would suggest to the House that those are the principles which could not be reconciled with the kind of expansion in public expenditure which would be involved if the amendment now before us were to be accepted. On the contrary, it could only have the effect of increasing the overall burden of rates and taxes, and any such increase must inevitably tighten the pressure on business and industry and put even more jobs at risk. It would in fact be a move in the wrong direction. The Budget itself also brought direct assistance to the unemployed by restoring the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployed benefit introduced in 1980.

Reference has been made in this debate and our two previous debates to the more specific problem of costs incurred in looking for work. My noble friend Lord Bellwin described during Committee stage of this Bill, and indeed I reiterated and added to his remarks during the debate on Lord Molloy's Bill, the help which the Government already make available through the Department of Employment and the Department of Health and Social Security towards travelling costs. The details of those schemes are, of course, matters for my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Health and Social Security. I shall convey to them the views that have been expressed in this House on the operation of those schemes. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway particularly, mentioned the operation of those schemes. Certainly I have no doubt in my mind that my right honourable friends would in any case wish to ensure that the benefits which are available are brought to the attention of those eligible to benefit from them.

As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would, I think, be the first to acknowledge, the amendment before us is very much wider in scope, and is designed to make it possible for those authorities who so wish to provide concessionary fares on public transport for the unemployed, and indeed for those training on schemes approved by the Manpower Services Commission, whatever the purpose of the journey might be. This is perhaps the point that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in his very powerful speech to us, did not take sufficiently on board. The amendment would allow concessionary fares whatever the purpose of the journey. There is no doubt, of course, of the sympathy that the proposal may command, but we have to ask ourselves far more searchingly how far such a measure could be justified, not only in terms of the increase in public expenditure which it would involve but also on the grounds of general public policy.

The unemployed are by no means the only group who might well have such a claim on public sympathy. Indeed, the potential anomaly is increased when we add to the unemployed, as the amendment does, those training on MSC schemes. It makes no similar provision for other groups of people who may also have very little money and who are also restricted in the extent to which they feel able to spend money on travel. One might refer to housewives, low-wage earners, single parents, many others with very similar problems. We have to ask whether if we extend these special concessions to the unemployed we are not being unfair to those other groups. Those groups might not only not benefit from them but have to contribute towards their cost.

The services we are talking about are already very substantially subsidised through local authorities' revenue support payments. What we are really asking here is whether local authorities should make a higher subsidy still. I have to say that I am afraid that the practical result of this amendment might well be that a few high-spending authorities would seize on the opportunity to increase the generosity of their subsidies, while perhaps there would be no concessions to other unemployed people in other areas where authorities take a rather more balanced view of their ability through rates to support expenditure.

We have to be quite clear that the amendment is aimed at increasing the expenditure funded by the rates. It aims to empower authorities to pay these concessions under Section 138 of the 1968 Act, absolutely and entirely outside the scope of the constraints in this Bill. From the Government side we have made it clear that where operators can offer concessions to the unemployed on a commercial basis, without further subsidies, then we welcome that, and there are a number who have succeeded and they should be commended very strongly.

I have to return to the fundamental point about this amendment, which is that there is a difference of view about priorities. The question is what is the best and most effective way of bringing help to those who are out of work? I suggest it is to create the economic conditions for fuller employment, for job opportunities, and we would actually be moving away from that objective if we gave our blessing to proposals which increase the burden of rates and taxes on industry and put more jobs at risk. I believe that that is what this amendment would do.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am absolutely amazed that on this amendment your Lordships should be treated to a political talk about the Budget. I am absolutely amazed that arguments of that kind have to be introduced in an endeavour to turn down this type of amendment. The noble Lord says that there is a difference of views on priorities. There is. There is a difference of view as to whether something can be done to assist unemployed persons who, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, are unemployed through no fault of their own.

We are told that young people should be able to get a job. But your Lordships should go to the North-East, where young people leave school knowing that they are not going to get a job, perhaps for 12 months or two years. I want them to live normal lives. If the Government say that this is not the measure and that it should be a national responsibility, then I challenge the Government to bring in a Bill tomorrow, or to ask one of their noble friends to bring in a Private Member's Bill, and all my noble friends will give immediate assistance to get it through the House as quickly as possible. But the Government will not do that. All sorts of spurious arguments are being brought forward as to why this amendment should not be carried.

There are people excluded from the DHSS scheme because they are not in receipt of unemployment benefit. Those people will have to be dealt with. I have not heard any proposals from the Minister that before the end of this Session the Government will bring in an amendment to put that right. Persons who are undergoing training with the MSC have to bear the first £4 of travel each week. I have not heard the Minister say that he will deal with that. We must therefore deal with the situation as it is now.

There are two purposes in the amendment. The first is to bring in those persons who are not getting free travel to look for work in the area of their local authority because they are not in receipt of supplementary benefit. Secondly, it will help the unemployed to cover the first £4 when undergoing training, which is now excluded. There is a third purpose, to assist the unemployed, whether they are old persons who are still unemployed or whether they are young, to live ordinary lives.

I am absolutely amazed that the impression is given that this belief of my noble friends and myself that the unemployed should live ordinary lives is something extraordinary. People are not unemployed because they want to be. They are unemployed because of various factors. I am not embarking on a political argument, but we ought to do something about it. If there are other persons who are excluded the Government can amend my amendment. I should be quite happy for them to do so if they believe there are other areas which should be brought in. As I said in my opening speech, it is a time-honoured political argument to say that certain people are excluded and, therefore, it cannot be done.

Is this a valid amendment? The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that it is impractical to operate. The local authority concerned can lay down the conditions under which this will operate, in the same way as it can for concessions for the aged. Incidentally, I do not want to be personal but I bet there are persons in this House who are receiving travel concessions from their local authority under Section 138; aged persons who are far better off than the unemployed. I do not receive them, but I do have a British Rail pass which enables me to travel for half fare. Many noble Lords are in that position. Good luck to them. But it would be for the local authority to decide on the conditions for operating these proposals. I refuse to believe that if this amendment is carried local authorities would not find it possible to carry out a watertight scheme.

The issue before the House is: Do your Lordships agree that we should endeavour to bring in persons who are outside the DHSS scheme and outside the MSC scheme (for the first £4); that the unemployed should be given an opportunity to travel within the area of their local authority, and that the local authority should determine the conditions, so that they would then be able to move around? If a person has to decide on whether to travel to see his parents, and it will cost £2 and possibly more, or whether to spend it on something else, your Lordships know what will happen. He will spend it on something else. Therefore, this is a sensible, humanitarian and practical way of assisting the unemployed. I hope that your Lordships will agree by voting for the amendment in the Division Lobbies.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I hesitate to speak because I am absolutely committed to leaving the House but I hope that the vote will be taken before that time. The debate should not be allowed to pass before some reply is given to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He made a very reasoned case and I again read what he said on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Molloy. I think I am not misinterpreting what he said when making three points: first, that assistance for the unemployed should be left to the Government and should not be done in the local areas; second, that benefit should not be related to the status of being unemployed; and, thirdly, that the Bill is not in any case intended to allow unemployed people to lead a normal life. That was the essence of his case. But that is a very good way of doing what an individual did about 1,900 years ago; he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands. But it does not relieve one's conscience if the answer can be given to those three points.

Let me first of all deal with the point that we should leave it to the Government and not to the local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, gave the answer to that. Let me make it absolutely clear that one does not fool the people in the North of this land. We know that the unemployment figures in the South-East are fictitious. We know that the unemployment figures in the South-East do not represent the kind of privation and suffering that has been occasioned in the North. We know by the number of vacancies that are advertised in the South that there are jobs here, but there are none in the North. That is one reason why concessions for the unemployed should be left to the local areas.

The situation pertaining in Merseyside or the North-East is entirely different from that pertaining in the South. We have deliberately moved people in Merseyside, with the collusion of central Government, away from where the job opportunities are. If one lives in the middle of Kirkby or Netherley, or even further out, it is no use staying there and walking out of the front door and looking for a job. There are no jobs. Historically, I can remember when going to school that I passed hundreds of men walking on the main road. When I went home again I passed them walking back the other way. What were they doing? They were walking looking for work, day in and day out. If people are to find work in places like that then they have to travel.

Nobody can suggest to me that an unemployed person with a family can afford the fares now being charged. That is one reason why it should not be left to central Government. It is a matter that impinges on the locality, especially in those areas such as South Yorkshire where, in spite of the subsidy coming from the rates, the people still return Labour councils because they, if nobody else, believe in subsidised fares.

Noble Lords say it should not be related to status. What is this wonderful word "status"? What does it mean? It is a type of description for a person. If we give concessions to disabled people, must the disablement be a leg disability? Must it be an age disability? Can it not be a disability that society has refused one the opportunity to work and earn money? Is that not a status? Is not that a disablement that is worse than the others because physical disablement is something that one cannot do much about, but the disability that we have inflicted on the unemployed is the deliberate intent of this Government?

I think everyone in the House will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Bill is not intended to help the unemployed to lead a normal life. The only point that misses is that this Government have deliberately set their face in the direction that means they will deny a normal life to 3½ million people—and it will get worse next year. The real truth and the answer there is that it is not this Government's intention to allow people to lead a normal life but to lead a very abnormal one.

5.59 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 100.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Ardwick, L. Collison, L.
Aylestone, L. Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.
Bacon, B. David, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Diamond, L.
Beswick, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Birk, B. Elwyn-Jones, L.
Bishopston, L. Ewart-Biggs, B.
Boston of Faversham, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Briginshaw, L. Flowers, L.
Brockway, L. Gormley, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Hampton, L.
Hanworth, V. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Seear, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
John-Mackie, L. Serota, B.
Kennet, L. Shackleton, L.
Kinnaird, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Kirkhill, L. Stedman, B.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Lovell-Davis, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Stone, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Mayhew, L. Tordoff, L. [Teller.]
Mishcon, L. Underhill, L.
Molloy, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ogmore, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Oram, L. Whaddon, L.
Peart, L. Wigoder, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B. Mancroft, L.
Auckland, L. Margadale, L.
Avon, E. Marley, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Merrivale, L.
Beloff, L. Mersey, V.
Belstead, L. Minto, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Molson, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Caccia, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Mottistone, L.
Cathcart, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Chelwood, L. Newall, L.
Colwyn, L. Northchurch, B.
Cottesloe, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Craigavon, V. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Craigmyle, L. O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Cullen of Asbbourne, L. Onslow, E.
Davidson, V. Orkney, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Orr-Ewing, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Pender, L.
Eccles, V. Penrhyn, L.
Ellenborough, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.
Elton, L. Portland, D.
Ferrers, E. Rankeillour, L.
Fortescue, E. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Reigate, L.
Garner, L. Renton, L.
Geoffrey-Lloyd, L. Romney, E.
Gibson-Watt, L. St. Davids, V.
Glanusk, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Glasgow, E. Sandford, L.
Glenarthur, L. Selkirk, E.
Glenkinglas, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Gridley, L. Soames, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Somers, L.
Stradbroke, E.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Strathspey, L.
Holderness, L. Sudeley, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Swinfen, L.
Inglewood, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Kilmany, L. Taylor of Hadfield, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Terrington, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Teynham, L.
Lauderdale, E. Trefgarne, L.
Long, V. Trumpington, B.
Loudoun, C. Vaizey, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lyell, L. Vickers, B.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Vivian, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.7 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 35:

Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

("Bus services: withdrawal.

. Any bus service which has been the subject of a proposal for the alleviation of hardship pursuant to a proposal by the British Railways Board or the London Transport Executive to discontinue any rail service specified in section 56(7) of the Transport Act 1962 shall not be withdrawn unless any such proposal for withdrawal has been referred to the appropriate Area Transport Users Consultative Committee and such committee has confirmed the proposal.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, we took Amendment No. 36, which is an amendment to the Title. This is the last opportunity at this stage of the Bill for the Government to accept an amendment. I will not be as confident as I should be in asking for that, but I would point out that the provision that we are asking for would in no way impair the objectives of the Bill. This is a provision which has nothing to do with revenue grants and nothing to do with advice to the PTE and the PTA. A suitable amendment has been put down to the Long Title so as to bring the matter in order. It is the same as an amendment that was brought forward at the Committee stage, but on that occasion there was another amendment which related only to services within the area of a passenger transport executive. That has been dropped because, whatever arguments were used, there were no arguments used in the Committee stage that the provision should not relate to a PTE but nationally, or vice versa. At the Committee stage we had both provisions.

In Committee I referred to observations in the Serpell Report to the effect that many persons were concerned that bus services which had been substituted for discontinued rail services in many cases disappeared after no more than two years. I remind your Lordships of paragraph 16.14 of Serpell, where it says: But the strongest assurance of continuity would be to subject the replacement services to an appropriate form of TUCC"— that is, transport users' consultative committee— type closure procedure". That was also included in the evidence presented to Serpell by the Central Transport Consultative Committee. That is precisely what is proposed in the amendment before your Lordships today; namely, that where a rail service is discontinued and is substituted by a bus service, that bus service shall not be withdrawn unless the proposal has been referred to the appropriate area transport users' consultative committee and that committee has confirmed the proposal.

At the Committee stage the Minister was sympathetic but said that these matters would be viewed in relation to the wider considerations of Serpell. A number of other noble Lords spoke in support of the amendment but the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he was sure that I would not expect him to accept the amendments in the light of what he had said. I still cannot understand why not. The amendment is not asking for any precipitate decision on Serpell. The issue is not dependent on what may be determined by the Government arising from Serpell. The amendment has nothing whatever to do with rail versus bus controversies. All the amendment is proposing is that, before any replacement bus service is taken off, the proposal must first be approved by the appropriate transport users' committee. That provision, I would stress, is fair to the public, good common sense and very good consultative practice.

At the Committee stage I asked three questions. First, is there assurance that there will not be any rail closures substituted by a bus service before the Government make up their mind on Serpell? Meanwhile, will there be an undertaking that no substituted bus service will be continued? Also, can we be given some idea of the timing involved? The latter point is important because if there is going to be considerable delay there could be a period of time before the principle contained in the amendment could be considered in relation to a further transport Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when replying said: He knows that I cannot give those undertakings". However, he eventually said that he would consider very carefully what had been said.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, kindly sent me a copy of a letter which he had sent to his noble friend Lord Teviot, who in the Committee stage debate asked whether there had been any rail closures recently which had been substituted by bus services. The Minister has pointed out that there has been only one such closure since 1973. But that is not the issue. The issue is concerned with bus services already substituted for rail services which have been discontinued, and that those services shall not be taken off without the proper procedure being gone through, as is outlined in the amendment. The letter further stated that if any rail service were the subject of closure, it would be the intention of the Secretary of State to specify that any replacement bus service would be required to continue for a specified time, which the Minister said in his letter could be a great deal longer than two years. If that is really the intention of the Minister, why not accept the amendment?

This amendment does nothing to interfere with the rest of the Bill. We have provided for a change in the Long Title so as to bring it within the scope of the Bill. If it is the intention of the Secretary of State that any replacement bus service put on in substitution for a rail service which has closed would be for a period a good deal longer than two years before it was allowed to be discontinued, then why not go the whole hog and accept the amendment? The amendment does not just leave the matter to the Secretary of State, but says that the issues shall be referred to the appropriate area transport users' consultative committee, and that only if they approve will the substituted bus service be allowed to be taken off.

This is such a reasonable amendment—and we have said this as regards so many amendments—and it does not interfere at all with the intention behind the rest of the Bill. I am certain that the noble Lord the Minister would like at least to crown himself with some glory before the end of the Report stage by accepting this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining why this clause has been tabled again and of course I accept the reasons why that is so. I am sorry that the letter of my noble friend Lord Bellwin to my noble friend Lord Teviot, which was copied to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was not available to him before he put down the amendments, but he has obviously had an opportunity of giving consideration to the contents of that letter.

It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I briefly explain the position. There has, with one recent exception, been no instance where a bus service has had to be provided as a condition of a rail passenger closure since 1973. We really cannot impose new conditions on substitute bus services which started over 10 years ago. The exception to which I have referred is Broad Street station, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has agreed can close in due course in order to allow the redevelopment of Liverpool Street station. The Railways Board plan eventually to direct the Broad Street services into the new Liverpool Street station, but as an interim measure they plan to provide a temporary station at Worship Street, some 600 yards to the north of Broad Street. In giving his consent, the Secretary of State has laid down a condition that the board will have to provide a bus service between Worship Street and Liverpool Street, integrated with the train timetable, throughout the period that Worship Street is in operation; and if they want to vary the bus service they will need the Secretary of State's consent in order so to do.

As your Lordships will recall from our debate in Committee, the Government have not reached any conclusions on the Serpell Committee's suggestion about the procedures that should be adopted if buses were substituted for a rail service. But I can and do give the House an assurance that the Government will, in reaching conclusions, take account of all that has been said both now and in the previous debate. Moreover, I can also give the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, an assurance that if in the meantime the Secretary of State for Transport decides, on any rail passenger closure proposal that comes before him, that a bus service should be provided in its place, it would be his intention to specify such a bus service clearly and require that the board seek his approval to changes in the service within a specified period—which could be a good deal longer than the two years common in the 1960s. At present, leaving aside any consideration of Serpell, I understand that the Railways Board themselves have currently only a handful of closures under consideration.

I hope that the assurances that I have given, both regarding our undertaking to take into account the views that have been expressed and also when looking at closure cases which require ministerial approval, will have persuaded the noble Lord that his new clause is not really necessary, and neither, of course, then, would be the consequential amendment to the Title.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord the Minister has said anything which suggests that this amendment is not necessary. Incidentally, he referred to the British Rail (Liverpool Street Station) Bill, and Broad Street and Worship Street stations. I understand that that matter will be debated on Third Reading on Wednesday and some noble Lords will undoubtedly be taking part.

We have all the assurances that "the Secretary of State will not do this", "that the Secretary of State will insist on this", but they are not in the Bill. I take it in good faith that the Secretary of State will keep to these assurances which have been given. But, as we have pointed out already, the present Secretary of State may not always be there; there may be different outlooks. Therefore, these assurances ought to be written into the Bill. Nothing that the Minister has said could not also be covered by saying, "Nevertheless to write these into the Bill will safeguard the future".

There is still an opportunity to have another look at this. I believe that the Government are being foolish here, because I do not believe that the noble Lord could take exception to one word in this amendment. He is merely saying to us that because it is the intention of the Minister, these are the assurances which the Secretary of State will give, and therefore there is no need to put it into the Bill. That could be said on practically every clause of almost every Bill that comes before your Lordships.

Nevertheless, we shall not divide on an issue of this kind, but will think again very carefully about it. I also hope that the Minister will do so because, grateful as we are for these assurances, I am certain that he will agree that these assurances ought to be written into the Bill, and then everyone will be satisfied. What is more, we should have declared our faith in the area transport users' consultative committees, which I believe is as important a matter as anything else. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]